Confirmatory factor analysis of the German Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS-D)

• Verfasst von: Mahler, Cornelia [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Giesler, Marianne [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Stock, Christian [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Krisam, Johannes [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Karstens, Sven [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Szecsenyi, Joachim [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Krug, Katja [VerfasserIn]
• Titel: Confirmatory factor analysis of the German Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS-D)
• Verf.angabe: Cornelia Mahler, Marianne Giesler, Christian Stock, Johannes Krisam, Sven Karstens, Joachim Szecsenyi, and Katja Krug
• E-Jahr: 2016
• Jahr: 06 May 2016
• Umfang: 4 S.
• Fussnoten: Gesehen am 26.05.2020
• Titel Quelle: Enthalten in: Journal of interprofessional care
• Ort Quelle: Abingdon : Taylor & Francis Group, 1992
• Jahr Quelle: 2016
• Band/Heft Quelle: 30(2016), 3, Seite 381-384
• ISSN Quelle: 1469-9567
• DOI: doi:10.3109/13561820.2016.1147023
• Datenträger: Online-Ressource
• Sprache: eng
• Sach-SW: Confirmatory factor analysis
• Sach-SW: interprofessional education
• Sach-SW: interprofessional evaluation
• Sach-SW: RIPLS
• Sach-SW: statistics
• K10plus-PPN: 1698812086

Abstract

Over the past five years, the development of interprofessional education programmes has been gaining momentum in Germany fostering the need to evaluate these with appropriate instruments. Instead of developing a new instrument for evaluation purposes, the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) was chosen, as it is a widespread instrument that has been used in a variety of different educational settings and countries. The German version of the RIPLS was administered in two sites to health professional students in Heidelberg and Freiburg, Germany. Cronbach’s alpha was used to examine internal consistency. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed for confirmation of the underlying factor structure of the RIPLS-D. In total, 531 questionnaires were analysed. The instrument showed overall reliability (0.81) and low reliability (< 0.7) in the subscales. The underlying factor structure could not be confirmed. These results contribute further evidence on deficits with the RIPLS. Despite known issues, the RIPLS continues to be translated and applied. This paper highlights the problematic issues in the RIPLS-D and does not recommend its use.